Originally Posted by curiously undead
but prime junta you're talking about ghosts/spirits, which don't physically exist in reality in the first place so what happens to them into in a game is a bad comparrison.

In other words, you feel that cruelty towards children in games is perfectly acceptable if the children are obviously fantasy children. So, where do you draw the line? Torturing ghost children is OK. What about orc children? Elf children? Dwarf children? Half-elf children? Where do you draw the line, and why should it be drawn there and not somewhere else?

The children in Dwarf Fortress are real children. Same for FO1/2. Same for Keyzer Söze's kids in that film — even if they didn't actually *depict* their gory fate.

is there any rational excuse for 'role playing' someone who can do whatever unspeakable act he/she feels like?

Is there any rational excuse for role-playing, period?

As for irrational excuses, I can think of several. We can explore the hidden and forbidden through play, art, and entertainment. Playing the role of a truly heinous villain can do that. I see absolutely no ethical problems with that — it's the difference between "reality" and "make-believe."

are peoples lifes in reality that unsatisfying that we have to stoop to doing such acts even in a virtual setting. dreams and fantasies, nightamares, or thoughts are one thing that regardless of what happens in them should never be judged, but a willful simulation of such acts are an entirely different matter and justifying the 'need' for those is beyond a slipperly slope as even with a jet engine i don't think you'd be able to reach a location where you could get a majority to validate such 'virtual' behavior.

Do you believe that entertainment or art needs to be "validated by the majority" in order to be permissible? Do you believe it needs be edifying, educational, or morally uplifting? 'Cuz I don't — I believe that one of the functions of art and entertainment is precisely to explore the forbidden. I believe that anything — literally, *anything* — is permissible in art. It only becomes a problem when it crosses the line delimiting reality from make-believe — for example, if actual, real people are harmed when creating it.

people who feel the need for these types of 'games' are going to bring about the death of gaming if they keep at is it will simply incur the wrath of those that would like to see no violence, lewdness, in gaming at all.

So you'd rather let those who would like to see no violence or lewdness in games at all win from the outset?

not being able to kill children in a game ruins the 'perfect' setting. this is so laughable that carefully crafted is used, but its a lack of carefulness that allows children not to be killed.

"Ruins" is a bit far, but it certainly harms the suspension of disbelief that's the underpinning for games. What's more, it's perfectly possible to design around the problem in ways that *don't* harm suspension of disbelief. For example, incorporate consequences into the game. Suppose that a Fallout-style game allowed the physical act of killing a child, but that act had the consequence that news of the act spread like wildfire, and you'd be met by a posse whichever way you turned, which broke all of the plot threads and quests, and let you make no meaningful progress in the game at all? That would drive home the message that killing children is taboo far more effectively than making them magically immune to bullets.

like all habits there is a bit of social conscious/awareness that 'users' should have unless they want to be addicts. gamers, especially us pc gamers, are often looked upon as having 'anti-social' behavior, but this pushes it way beyond that, and if this becomes the norm—guess i'll have to find a new hobby or an old one…

Yeah, sure. It would instantly spell the doom of the entire interactive entertainment business.

Go take a cold shower and maybe drink some camomile tea. You need to calm down.